|
Title: 51% Post by: bracek on April 08, 2012, 10:44:32 AM can this be done to avoid 51% attack ?
miners who discovered new block only get reward and tx fees, but actual writing of transactions and verification is done by some other miner ? Title: Re: 51% Post by: kokjo on April 08, 2012, 10:57:56 AM no.
Title: Re: 51% Post by: bracek on April 08, 2012, 11:43:23 AM miners of recent blocks would be randomly eligible to "write"
transactions in the next block sounds ok Title: Re: 51% Post by: kokjo on April 08, 2012, 11:53:56 AM you cant write something in a block, without changing it.
please stop asking questions that shows that you know nothing about how stuff work. go read some more and find out why you are failing. Title: Re: 51% Post by: Kettenmonster on April 08, 2012, 12:13:59 PM Bracek keep the decentralized approach in mind!
As soon as one entity gathers more than half the crop the thing is no longer decentralized, thus consider it broken. Title: Re: 51% Post by: bracek on April 08, 2012, 03:10:24 PM I think you both did not get what I wanted to say
I am not preaching for any kind of centralization I just asked is it possible that miners switch their duties of writing current transactions in newly mined block miner A mines new hash broadcasts that he found it then miner B is is chosen at random he will use this new found hash to create a block miner A gets his reward and fees in the long run, there is no extra unpaid work, just the miner with most hashing power would not be able to write latest blocks if again, i got it wrong, I won't post here any more Title: Re: 51% Post by: the joint on April 08, 2012, 03:12:45 PM you cant write something in a block, without changing it. please stop asking questions that shows that you know nothing about how stuff work. go read some more and find out why you are failing. -1 Way to go, O' Superior One. Title: Re: 51% Post by: DeathAndTaxes on April 08, 2012, 03:16:18 PM if again, i got it wrong, I won't post here any more The hash is ONLY valid for a specific set of inputs (Version Block, Previous hash, Merkle root, Timestamp, Target/Difficulty, & Nonce) You create a block header containing the above information and hash it. If it meets the target you found a block. If it doesn't you change one value (usually nonce) and try again.. and again ... and again on average it takes difficutly * 2^32 hashes to find one which meets the target. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Block_hashing_algorithm You can't find a hash and then make a block out of it because the hash is only good for the EXACT blockheader. One element of the blockheader is the merkle root which is a hash of all tx in the merkle tree. If you could change the tx and get the same merkle tree hash well then Bitcoin would be worthless. If you change one thing (even one bit of tx) the block will have a new hash for a given nonce. Title: Re: 51% Post by: kokjo on April 08, 2012, 04:03:12 PM I think you both did not get what I wanted to say how do you distinguish between different miners?I am not preaching for any kind of centralization I just asked is it possible that miners switch their duties of writing current transactions in newly mined block miner A mines new hash broadcasts that he found it then miner B is is chosen at random he will use this new found hash to create a block miner A gets his reward and fees in the long run, there is no extra unpaid work, just the miner with most hashing power would not be able to write latest blocks if again, i got it wrong, I won't post here any more how do you choose at random in a anonymous possible hostile distributed system? do you really think that miners would pause the generating blocks, just because he/she/they found one, and oh btw. miners just don't create blocks, they try millions(and more) different ones to find one that "fits". your posts shows lack of knowledge, please go read some more. you cant write something in a block, without changing it. please stop asking questions that shows that you know nothing about how stuff work. go read some more and find out why you are failing. -1 Way to go, O' Superior One. i would have(maybe...) been more polite to him in the newbie forum, but he thinks he know something he does not. he is not seeking knowledge, or asks to gets something to be explained to him. NO! he suggests something stupid, without knowing how stuff works(or even wants to know, judging by his posts). Thats why i kicked his balls... and NO! you can not make me feel bad about doing it, by giving me a "-1", or making fun of my superiorness. |